The myth of the "Moderate Republican."

So, I watched the PaulBots take over the CCGOP much like they've taken over Spokane... and there was a brouhaha over the facebook musings of Brent Boger... and, of course, that whole Marc Boldt fiasco as a road marker on the journey to political mediocrity.

What, precisely, IS a "mainstreamer?"

Well, it's more an adjective then a noun.  But to me, it's the political equivalent of a confused bisexual.

For most, it's another word for democrat, because the position of a so-called "Mainstream Republican" typically aligns much more with the democrats than with the prototypical Republican.

Republicans, as a party, are, for example, opposed to the rather bizarre concept of gay marriage.

Republicans support the concept of self defense.

Republicans typically believe in less government and lower taxes.

Republicans locally, for example, are likely to be opposed to the idiocy of the CRC scam.

Mainstreamers typically oppose most of... or all of... those positions.

So, of course, do the democrats.

Thus, it can fairly be alleged that the definition of a "Mainstreamer" is one who supports democrat positions on most issues, but refuses to call themselves "democrat" for whatever the reason... even though their positions are mostly, or in Marc Boldt's case at the local level, ENTIRELY democrat.

Thus the acronym "RINO," as in "Republican in name only."

We had several Mainstreamers running for statewide office: naturally, they all lost save for on unimportant position of Secretary of State.

Brent Boger's take?

Boger lectures PCO Liberty Alliance about Republican Party

Blog: Political Beat

Subscribe

By Stevie Mathieu (Columbian Staff)

December 13, 2012

Moderate Republican Brent Boger took the PCO Liberty Alliance to task on his Facebook page today.  

The alliance was created this year to give a voice to non-establishment political candidates and their supporters. Boger, a former chair of the Clark County Republican party who left the party earlier this year, referred to some members of the alliance as "self-righteous ideologues" whose extremism will ultimately harm the party.
At first, Boger left these remarks:  

"The local County Rep Party faces being taken over by a bunch of self-righteous ideologues--a significant number of whom did not support Mitt Romney, Jamie Herrera (Beutler), or Rob McKenna. 

"For example, I was just forwarded an e-mail string where one candidate for County Rep Party office was attacked just for having a Master Public Administration degree. His opponent is a Ron Paul-supporting John Birch Society member. If rank-and-file Republicans knew what these ideologues were like, they would be dispatched. 

"It's lonely being a moderate Republican."

Now, I get why the rag published this nonsense: anything they can do to highlight the fractures within the GOP at any level will naturally rise to the level of "news" for them: It is of some note, for example, that Boger had long since left the GOP of his own accord and really, as a result, why would Boger's facebook musings matter, one way or the other?

Well, we know that it's because the democratian will use anything they can to cast the GOP in a negative light and the "disgruntled" former members will be happy to oblige them with that.

In the past, back when it suited Brent to claim GOP membership, I supported him politically, and even volunteered on his campaign for prosecutor.  I had publicly and vociferously defended him when that scumbag Brancaccio was doing... or about to do... a hatchet job on him.

But as I pointed out, Boger threw the local GOP under the bus for failing to follow HIS ideology and because they acted (quite properly, as it turned out) to get rid of Marc Boldt.

As a point of reference, Boldt had completely aligned himself with, and had his campaign paid for and run by, in large part, democrats.  What then, does Boger's rabid support of Boldt say about either Boldt OR Boger?

As you may expect, some took umbrage at Boger's position.

Not the least of which is me.

I got caught in Boger's philosophical shotgun blast.  I'm one of those who finds themselves in the peculiar position of opposing BOTH the RINO candidates AND the PaulBots.

You can do both, you know.  Boger, apparently, can't differentiate.

So, when it comes to the: "The local County Rep Party faces being taken over by a bunch of self-righteous ideologues--a significant number of whom did not support Mitt Romney, Jamie Herrera (Beutler), or Rob McKenna," I have to ask myself:

"Self, which 'self-righteous ideologue' is worse?  The PaulBot wannabes, or the RINO's who have no problem sitting in judgment and then declaring guilt for others over that which they themselves practice?"

That's a toughie.

My oppositions to fake Republicans like McKenna, Dunn, Finkbeiner, Herrera and the like are based ENTIRELY on their positions on the issues and what they have, or in the ongoing nightmare of Herrera's tenure, what they will fail to do while lying about it; have NOT done.

I detailed the cowardice of the Mainstreamer's listed here on this very blog; their lame efforts to co-opt democrat positions, their ongoing failure and even attacks against those succeeding using conservative actions and memes; their lies and deflection and cowardice (Herrera. specifically) and it's their POSITIONS (which are mostly democrat) that caused my opposition.  Many mainstream RINO's could care less about the fringe-left positions these clowns assume; all they give a damn about is the "R" after their names, positions and principles be damned.

As for me, I will never vote for a "settle for" candidate as long as I live: and in the past election, of the few non-write-in candidates I actually voted for, many were democrat.

Brent, unconstrained by party and likely doomed to lose his efforts at re-election next year (The guy has not only burned his bridges... he's nuked them.  And as we all know by now, democrats won't vote for a Republican... just ask Marc) feels compelled to wave red flags in front of those he needs... if not their support... at least their forbearance... responds to that sort of thing thusly:

"Paramount to my principles is an understanding that adherence to rigid ideology and refusing to compromise always results in sacrificing the 'better' in the quixotic hope of getting the 'best,'" Boger wrote. "You need to understand that the views of the 60,000,000 Republican voters are much closer to mine than they are to the PCO Liberty Alliance--many of whom don't even vote Republican. Did you?"

And yet Romney, who, in the end, even *I* supported, could not beat arguably the worst president this nation has ever known.

And, is this where I point out that when it comes to "rigid ideology," Brent has few peers?  I would venture to say that Brent's ideology, while an arguably different flavor, is at least as rigid as Ron Paul's himself.  Odd, that; someone with an ideology set in concrete attacks others for the same, precise, thing?

The PCOA is, primarily, PaulBot driven but locally financed.  This agony, which Boger loves to talk about and the democratian loves to share, is likely to go on for a long time.  The experiment is likely to end come November, 2014, because there is only one true measure of success:

Will we have more GOP candidates in office then, than we do now?

And somehow... I doubt it.

As for Brent, I would venture to say that he would be better served if he would exercise a little more tolerance.  These people will succeed or fail on their own... without you... or me. And getting them to hate you, Brent, is not a recipe for your continued political success... unless being a one-partial term city council member is really all you want for your political history?